ArticleBMJ global health2021
Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries.
Article in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Formal and informal science-policy interaction during public health emergencies of international concern: a scoping review.BMC global and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to knowledge translation at the science-policy interface during the COVID-19 pandemic public health emergency: a rapid review and theoretical analysis to inform development of a logic model.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Experiences of Public Health Professionals Regarding Crisis Communication During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Pooled it
- Participation of civil society organizations and academia in COVID-19 governance: insights from a six country study.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- COVID-19 kit distribution in six Latin American countries: bureaucratic autonomy, populism, and evidence-based policymaking.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- COVID-19 education policy often relied on older research despite available new evidence.STAR protocols · 2026Article
- Mapping risk communication practices in public health emergencies: a scoping review and comparison with Italian regional pandemic plans.BMC public health · 2026Article
- History, Hype, and Responsible Psychedelic Medicine: A Qualitative Study of Psychedelic Researchers.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Independent SAGE as an example of effective public dialogue on scientific research.Nature protocols · 2025Article
- What Lessons can Be Learned From the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic?International journal of public health · 2025Review
- The Role of BSL-3 Laboratories in Pandemic Preparedness: A Focus on Brazil's Infrastructure for Biosafety and Disease Control.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2025Review
- The foundations of influencing policy and practice: How risk science discourse shaped government action during COVID-19.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2024Article
- Lessons learned from COVID-19 modelling efforts for policy decision-making in lower- and middle-income countries.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- The influence of crisis on policy formulation: the case of alcohol regulation in South Africa during COVID-19 (2020-21).Health policy and planning · 2024Article
- The use of evidence to guide decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: divergent perspectives from a qualitative case study in British Columbia, Canada.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Informing evidence-based policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period: learning from a national evidence centre.Global health research and policy · 2024Article
- Article
- 'What we lacked was the courage to take decisions that differed from the rest of the world': expert perspectives on the role of evidence in COVID-19 policymaking in Iraq.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Developing, implementing, and monitoring tailored strategies for integrated knowledge translation in five sub-Saharan African countries.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Systematic review of MCDM approach applied to the medical case studies of COVID-19: trends, bibliographic analysis, challenges, motivations, recommendations, and future directions.Complex & intelligent systems · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn order to tackle the pandemic, governments have established various types of advisory boards to provide evidence and recommendations to policy makers. Scientists working on these boards have faced many challenges, including working under significant time constraints to produce 'evidence' as quickly as possible. However, their voices are still largely missing in the discussion. This study explores the views and experiences of scientists working on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim to learn lessons for future pandemic management and preparedness.
methodsWe conducted online video or telephone semi-structured interviews between December 2020 and April 2021 with 21 scientists with an official government advisory role during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium, the Netherlands, UK, Sweden and Germany. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques.
resultsScientists viewed the initial focus on biomedically oriented work during the pandemic as somewhat one-dimensional, but also highlighted difficulties of working in an interdisciplinary way. They found it difficult at times to ensure that the evidence is understood and taken on board by governments. They found themselves taking on new roles, the boundaries of which were not clearly defined. Consequently, they were often perceived and treated as a public figure.
conclusionScientists working on advisory boards in European countries faced similar challenges, highlighting key lessons to be learnt. Future pandemic preparedness efforts should focus on building interdisciplinary collaboration through development of scientists' skills and appropriate infrastructure; ensuring transparency in how boards operate; defining and protecting the boundaries of the scientific advisor role; and supporting scientists to inform the public in the fight against disinformation, while dealing with potential hostile reactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.